Windows 10 Auto Update
-
@scottalanmiller said:
If people are used to just accepting whatever without reading, they are going to find themselves on Windows 10 and be "surprised."
I will admit to not reading hte MS stuff they throw up about licensing when updates are run.
But if they are hiding a Windows 10 install in there, that's pretty shady.
I was assuming (I know, I know) that the full Windows 10 upgrade screen would come up. AKA the user would HAVE to see they were upgrading to Windows 10.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@wirestyle22 said:
No WSUS because _____. Another thing I requested as was denied. No all of my PC's are connected to our domain. This will change when I fully install ZeroTier etc.
What's going to change? Adding them all to AD?
I can't change GPO for all PC's through the domain and have it affect all of my computers. When I connect all of my PC's to the domain I'll be able to do that. Currently I'm using a script on each PC not connected to the domain.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If people are used to just accepting whatever without reading, they are going to find themselves on Windows 10 and be "surprised."
I will admit to not reading hte MS stuff they throw up about licensing when updates are run.
But if they are hiding a Windows 10 install in there, that's pretty shady.
I was assuming (I know, I know) that the full Windows 10 upgrade screen would come up. AKA the user would HAVE to see they were upgrading to Windows 10.
From my understanding it's not hidden, but it's not like a bright red flashing sign either.
Remember, MS wants people to upgrade. Most home users are no upgrading because they have heard to much FUD - that said, forcing this upgrade is not good either because there is nothing ensuring that users have backed up their systems first as you should before any upgrade.
-
@Dashrender said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
If people are used to just accepting whatever without reading, they are going to find themselves on Windows 10 and be "surprised."
I will admit to not reading hte MS stuff they throw up about licensing when updates are run.
But if they are hiding a Windows 10 install in there, that's pretty shady.
I was assuming (I know, I know) that the full Windows 10 upgrade screen would come up. AKA the user would HAVE to see they were upgrading to Windows 10.
From my understanding it's not hidden, but it's not like a bright red flashing sign either.
Remember, MS wants people to upgrade. Most home users are no upgrading because they have heard to much FUD - that said, forcing this upgrade is not good either because there is nothing ensuring that users have backed up their systems first as you should before any upgrade.
I'd say the opposite, it's extra good that they allow users to punish themselves as it is only an issue when they don't pay attention to what they are accepting AND don't make backups AND were trying to run old systems.
-
@Dashrender said:
Remember, MS wants people to upgrade. Most home users are no upgrading because they have heard to much FUD - that said, forcing this upgrade is not good either because there is nothing ensuring that users have backed up their systems first as you should before any upgrade.
All my calls were from friends with small businesses that apparently run software not compatible with Windows 10.
Or couldn't find any of their programs.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
I'd say the opposite, it's extra good that they allow users to punish themselves as it is only an issue when they don't pay attention to what they are accepting AND don't make backups AND were trying to run old systems.
@scottalanmiller always cheery!
-
@BRRABill said:
@Dashrender said:
Remember, MS wants people to upgrade. Most home users are no upgrading because they have heard to much FUD - that said, forcing this upgrade is not good either because there is nothing ensuring that users have backed up their systems first as you should before any upgrade.
All my calls were from friends with small businesses that apparently run software not compatible with Windows 10.
Or couldn't find any of their programs.
Then the obvious question would be...
Why would a business not have a patching control process in place if they are subject to using legacy software with such dependencies? How did they get caught by surprise, is their IT not overseeing things? The only way that you get caught, I think, is if users are running as local admins and, if so, my pity is in the negatives.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would a business not have a patching control process in place if they are subject to using legacy software with such dependencies? How did they get caught by surprise, is their IT not overseeing things? The only way that you get caught, I think, is if users are running as local admins and, if so, my pity is in the negatives.
It goes back to even though it is understandably wrong, there are a lot of companies that do their own IT support, or only want to pay when things break.
I'm not saying they are they type of client you want, but just know there are a lot of them out there.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
I'd say the opposite, it's extra good that they allow users to punish themselves as it is only an issue when they don't pay attention to what they are accepting AND don't make backups AND were trying to run old systems.
@scottalanmiller always cheery!
I actually am. I see encouraged updates as a good thing. People who run old OSes hurt everyone. They raise the cost of systems, they encourage vendors to not keep packages updated, they put IT into more reactive than proactive mode, they invest against forward motion, and they increase the security risk for everyone (larger global attack surface.)
Keeping everyone updated isn't just good for MS, it's good for everyone, especially IT pros.
-
@BRRABill said:
It goes back to even though it is understandably wrong, there are a lot of companies that do their own IT support, or only want to pay when things break.
Nothing wrong with that, it's only wrong to feel bad for them when things do break. It means that they decided, sometime in the past, that it was more effective to have things break than to try to prevent it. That's their call. They've already gotten all of their benefits to this and now they have to pay the toll that the rest of us paid long ago. Did people feel sorry for us, no. Do not feel sorry for them, it's just business and they bet that this would cost them less overall. If it has, then they made the right decision and you should be happy for them. If it did not, they need to learn and improve like we all have to do every day. It's just another business decision, not something anyone forced them to do.
-
@BRRABill said:
I'm not saying they are they type of client you want, but just know there are a lot of them out there.
And I'm just saying that I'm happiest when those people get forced updates. It's the best thing for everyone (except maybe them.) The only people who might find a downside to this process are the same ones who optionally chose to be subject to it.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
And I'm just saying that I'm happiest when those people get forced updates.
We should start a Top Ten list of things that make us happy in IT.
-
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would a business not have a patching control process in place if they are subject to using legacy software with such dependencies? How did they get caught by surprise, is their IT not overseeing things? The only way that you get caught, I think, is if users are running as local admins and, if so, my pity is in the negatives.
It goes back to even though it is understandably wrong, there are a lot of companies that do their own IT support, or only want to pay when things break.
I'm not saying they are they type of client you want, but just know there are a lot of them out there.
Assuming they are running Windows 7 or better, I have yet to find software that doesn't work in Windows 10. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just haven't bumped into it.
-
The important things are that this doesn't really take anyone taking the slightest effort to not be an idiot by surprise. The most basic effort, like not running as the local admin, which is required to stay at the home line, is all that it takes. Not accepting just anything is also required. The number of safeties to stop people from getting forced to do this are numerous. If you take the slightest effort to take your business or your IT seriously, you are really not under any risk. None. And most (not all) people for whom it is a problem are those who don't take their businesses or IT seriously. And Windows 10 is not new, it's a year old now.
I think the real thing is simply... we shouldn't be concerned about this happening. MS is giving tons of warning and tons of ways to make sure you don't get surprised. No one can claim ignorance, really, if this happens and/or they can't claim that they care that it happened. The decision that this wasn't important has to have been made before this happens or, of course, it wouldn't happen.
What it is important for us, in IT, to do is never empower people to act like it is socially acceptable to pretend that they are the victims. It's like not paying your taxes and then acting like a victim when you own penalties and get caught. This is not maintaining or running their systems properly and then trying to get sympathy when they get "caught."
-
@Dashrender said:
@BRRABill said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Why would a business not have a patching control process in place if they are subject to using legacy software with such dependencies? How did they get caught by surprise, is their IT not overseeing things? The only way that you get caught, I think, is if users are running as local admins and, if so, my pity is in the negatives.
It goes back to even though it is understandably wrong, there are a lot of companies that do their own IT support, or only want to pay when things break.
I'm not saying they are they type of client you want, but just know there are a lot of them out there.
Assuming they are running Windows 7 or better, I have yet to find software that doesn't work in Windows 10. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist, I just haven't bumped into it.
Same here. I'm sure this is an issue often, but I think that a lot of people make it out to be an issue everywhere when, in my estimation, it is relatively rare.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
The important things are that this doesn't really take anyone taking the slightest effort to not be an idiot by surprise. The most basic effort, like not running as the local admin, which is required to stay at the home line, is all that it takes.
Really - you think the home user line is not running as a local admin? I don't know a single person who I didn't setup that way who doesn't run as a non admin at home (members of this group not included). Hell, Windows 10 still doesn't walk a person through setting up an admin account, and automatically making a user account for the user to use.
Even Mac goes that far during initial install - create admin account, and separate user account for normal use.
I think this is a huge failing on MS's part - but they are looking at simplicity of use, and separate accounts are anything but to a non IT person.
-
@Dashrender said:
Really - you think the home user line is not running as a local admin?
Absolutely. t's the most fundamental rule of using computers well. If you run as the local admin, you fail every "test" IMHO. Everything. It's as "fail" as there can be.
-
I agree.
It basically installs as an Admin user.
You'd have to go out of your way to do it otherwise.
-
@Dashrender said:
I don't know a single person who I didn't setup that way who doesn't run as a non admin at home (members of this group not included).
The home line does not refer to the level of the average computer user, it's the level of home computer use by serious people - meaning how computers are treated by those who are knowledgeable and gauged against the value of their home systems. It's still about the actions of IT pros, but when the cost/value calculation is based on things like storing video games, home movies and the like.
So it remains an IT evaluation. If you fall below the home line, it means that you see your business as less important than a home computer would be.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@Dashrender said:
Really - you think the home user line is not running as a local admin?
Absolutely. t's the most fundamental rule of using computers well. If you run as the local admin, you fail every "test" IMHO. Everything. It's as "fail" as there can be.
Sure, you're right it is.. but that doesn't make it the home line I don't think it can be the home line until during install it basically forces you to do this. It's not apparent in any way that this needs to be done/should be done. How are home users suppose to know about this?
As I said, the MAC walks you through this very specifically, Windows never has, and still doesn't, even in Windows 10.
